What would it take for the U.S. to go fully "green"?

[Little-Acorn]

Nice to find a fairly compact summary of what it would take for the U.S. to adopt a complete "green energy" economy - one with no usage of fossil fuels.

And a list of the reasons WHY these things would be required... whether we like it or not.

------------------------------------------

http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/28/green-energy-economics-opinions-jerry-taylor-peter-van-doren.html

The Green Energy Economy Reconsidered

by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren
The Cato Institute
03.29.11, 06:00 AM EDT

"Green" energy such as wind, solar and biomass presently constitute only 3.6% of fuel used to generate electricity in the U.S. But if another "I Have a Dream" speech were given at the base of the Lincoln Memorial, it would undoubtedly urge us on to a promised land where renewable energy completely replaced fossil fuels and nuclear power.

How much will this particular dream cost? Energy expert Vaclav Smil calculates that achieving that goal in a decade--former Vice President Al Gore's proposal--would incur building costs and write-downs on the order of $4 trillion. Taking a bit more time to reach this promised land would help reduce that price tag a bit, but simply building the requisite generators would cost $2.5 trillion alone.

Let's assume, however, that we could afford that. Have we ever seen such a "green economy"? Yes we have; in the 13th century.

Renewable energy is quite literally the energy of yesterday. Few seem to realize that we abandoned "green" energy centuries ago for five very good reasons.

First, green energy is diffuse, and it takes a tremendous amount of land and material to harness even a little bit of energy. Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment and senior research associate at Rockefeller University, calculates, for instance, that the entire state of Connecticut (that is, if Connecticut were as windy as the southeastern Colorado plains) would need to be devoted to wind turbines to power the city of New York.

Second, it is extremely costly. In 2016 President Obama's own Energy Information Administration estimates that onshore wind (the least expensive of these green energies) will be 80% more expensive than combined cycle, gas-fired electricity. And that doesn't account for the costs associated with the hundreds of billions of dollars worth of new transmission systems that would be necessary to get wind and solar energy--which is generally produced far from where consumers happen to live--to ratepayers.

Third, it is unreliable. The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine when the energy is needed. We account for that today by having a lot of coal and natural gas generation on "standby" to fire-up when renewables can't produce. Incidentally, the cost of maintaining this backup generation is likewise never fully accounted for in the cost estimates associated with green energy. But in a world where fossil fuels are a thing of the past, we would be forced--like the peasants of the Dark Age--to rely upon the vagaries of the weather.

Fourth, it is scarce. While wind and sunlight are obviously not scarce, the real estate where those energies are reliably continuous and in economic proximity to ratepayers is scarce.

Finally, once the electricity is produced by the sun or wind, it cannot be stored because battery technology is not currently up to the task. Hence, we must immediately "use it or lose it."

Fossil fuels are everything that green energy is not. Approximately 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas (which cost approximately $4.00) can generate the same amount of electricity as running an average rooftop solar system for 131 days. It is comparatively cheap. It is reliable; it will burn and produce energy whenever you want it. It is plentiful (we use only a tiny bit of oil in the electricity sector). And you can store fossil fuels until you need them.


(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[fj1200]

Nice to find a fairly compact summary of what it would take for the U.S. to adopt a complete "green energy" economy - one with no usage of fossil fuels.

And a list of the reasons WHY these things would be required... whether we like it or not.

Nice summary. We need to focus on the achievable rather than pie in the sky. Better/cheaper nuclear, solar rooftops to mitigate peak power requirements, infrastructure improvements...

[DragonStryk72]

As far as the batteries go, that's really just a matter of time till those start showing up at Wal-Mart. I mean, in seriousness, the tech already exists in the form of a variety of chargers for batteries, and really, once electricity is generated, it mostly breaks down the same. I mean, just look at batteries and general tech 10 years ago.

Rooftop solar panels would be a solid solution, as long as they are still connected to the power grid for those times when the sun isn't out. We're likely not going to be full green for some time yet, but we can at least start trying to mitigate the amount of power being used on a day-to-day basis.

[Nukeman]

Battery technology is be far the major hurdle in "green energy" we can produce electricity in a variety of ways its the storage of thats the problem.

Not only do the batteries need to be able to store vast amounts of energy but they need to be able to recharge VERY quickly, or dispense the energy very slowly...

Until battery technology reaches the point of almost instant recharge and large capacity we will NOT be going green. So if the "government" wants to have this country move in that direction they need to have a project started in the like of the "Manhattan Project". Get the best minds together in ONE place and give them unlimited funds to do what they do best.... experiment.... build.... make possible the impossible!!!!!

[Kathianne]

Battery technology is be far the major hurdle in "green energy" we can produce electricity in a variety of ways its the storage of thats the problem.

Not only do the batteries need to be able to store vast amounts of energy but they need to be able to recharge VERY quickly, or dispense the energy very slowly...

Until battery technology reaches the point of almost instant recharge and large capacity we will NOT be going green. So if the "government" wants to have this country move in that direction they need to have a project started in the like of the "Manhattan Project". Get the best minds together in ONE place and give them unlimited funds to do what they do best.... experiment.... build.... make possible the impossible!!!!!

http://www.wfsb.com/news/27586692/detail.html


Electric Car Catches Fire, Again
Chevy Volt Is Believed To Have Set A Garage On Fire In Barkhamsted

BARKHAMSTED,Conn. -- A hybrid electric Chevrolet Volt believed to have sparked an overnight blaze in a garage in Barkhamsted last week, reignited again on Monday.

The state fire marshal's office is investigating how the electric car parked at a Center Hill Road home caught fire Monday morning.

Last week, homeowners Storm Connors and his wife, Dee, woke up to the sound of a smoke alarm around 4 a.m.

The couple's garage, where they parked their new Chevrolet Volt hybrid, was on fire. Firefighters were able to put out the blaze. A firewall built between the home and the garage saved their home.

Investigators with the state fire marshal's office and the couple's insurance company, at the time, suspected the hybrid car have had something to do with the blaze.

On Monday morning, firefighters were called back to the home when the car caught fire again.

The fire is under investigation.

[DragonStryk72]

only issue with the article you posted, Kathianne, is that there's no numbers on how many have caught fire like that, as well not having any other information other that what's in the quotes.

[Kathianne]

only issue with the article you posted, Kathianne, is that there's no numbers on how many have caught fire like that, as well not having any other information other that what's in the quotes.

I think it was one, at least so far.

[NightTrain]

Electric Car Catches Fire, Again
Chevy Volt Is Believed To Have Set A Garage On Fire In Barkhamsted

BARKHAMSTED,Conn. -- A hybrid electric Chevrolet Volt believed to have sparked an overnight blaze in a garage in Barkhamsted last week, reignited again on Monday.

The state fire marshal's office is investigating how the electric car parked at a Center Hill Road home caught fire Monday morning.

Last week, homeowners Storm Connors and his wife, Dee, woke up to the sound of a smoke alarm around 4 a.m.

The couple's garage, where they parked their new Chevrolet Volt hybrid, was on fire. Firefighters were able to put out the blaze. A firewall built between the home and the garage saved their home.

Investigators with the state fire marshal's office and the couple's insurance company, at the time, suspected the hybrid car have had something to do with the blaze.

On Monday morning, firefighters were called back to the home when the car caught fire again.

The fire is under investigation.

I'm wondering if the intrepid couple finally decided to push that Chevy Volt out into a field or something?

"Don't be silly, Mabel! That car won't catch on fire a third time."

[PostmodernProphet]

in answer to the underlying question "what would it take"....obviously...
1) we used up all the other sources....
2) a situation that would likely predate 1), the other sources got too expensive to use....

[revelarts]

Nice to find a fairly compact summary of what it would take for the U.S. to adopt a complete "green energy" economy - one with no usage of fossil fuels.

And a list of the reasons WHY these things would be required... whether we like it or not.

------------------------------------------

http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/28/green-energy-economics-opinions-jerry-taylor-peter-van-doren.html

The Green Energy Economy Reconsidered

by Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren
The Cato Institute
03.29.11, 06:00 AM EDT

"Green" energy such as wind, solar and biomass presently constitute only 3.6% of fuel used to generate electricity in the U.S. But if another "I Have a Dream" speech were given at the base of the Lincoln Memorial, it would undoubtedly urge us on to a promised land where renewable energy completely replaced fossil fuels and nuclear power.

How much will this particular dream cost? Energy expert Vaclav Smil calculates that achieving that goal in a decade--former Vice President Al Gore's proposal--would incur building costs and write-downs on the order of $4 trillion. Taking a bit more time to reach this promised land would help reduce that price tag a bit, but simply building the requisite generators would cost $2.5 trillion alone.

Let's assume, however, that we could afford that. Have we ever seen such a "green economy"? Yes we have; in the 13th century.

Renewable energy is quite literally the energy of yesterday. Few seem to realize that we abandoned "green" energy centuries ago for five very good reasons.
...

Um this makes a point or 2 but is kinda of a bass akward way of looking at it and probably flat wrong in the numbers. Al Gore and this expert seem to be thinking top down and Mass energy rather than a basket of personal and local energy sources which will probably be the way to go rather than replacing plant for plant.



Battery technology is be far the major hurdle in "green energy" we can produce electricity in a variety of ways its the storage of thats the problem.

Not only do the batteries need to be able to store vast amounts of energy but they need to be able to recharge VERY quickly, or dispense the energy very slowly...

Until battery technology reaches the point of almost instant recharge and large capacity we will NOT be going green. So if the "government" wants to have this country move in that direction they need to have a project started in the like of the "Manhattan Project". Get the best minds together in ONE place and give them unlimited funds to do what they do best.... experiment.... build.... make possible the impossible!!!!!

I'l get to the Battery bit in a minute but I think the Manhattan project thing is a great Idea too. But the hurdles are not as heavy as we think.

The Japan thing has pushed me over the edge concerning Nukes.
The safety record may be great comparatively but when one does go down it's effects are much to far reaching and unpredictable to be reasonable except as a last resort IMO now.

We've known for years that Oil is an issue whether we think it's running out world wide, or just domestically unavailable reliably at cost that are acceptable.
Coal has smaller issues and we have plenty.
Natural Gas is great and we have plenty of that too.

the article say Wind Solar, and Biomass are doing 3.6% of the job Now.
that's right now.

It's not much but it's not ZERO.

we know they work now without any new tech.

the questions is that put out there is cost and Batteries.
It seems this same article came out 5 years ago and the "Expert" hasn't been keeping up with what's available NOW and what's now possible based on new research.

Also he didn't specifically mention Geotheremal or Wave energy.

Here's a geothermal plant in Utah built in 2009 in 5 months from ground breaking to finish for about 33 million producing 10 mega watts from "off the shelf" refrigeration and air conditioner parts.

Raser low-temperature binary geothermal plant goes online (http://www.gizmag.com/raser-low-temperature-binary-geothermal-plant-goes-online/11612/)


Here's a Wave energy system working now in Scotland , with the potential to bring low cost energy to over 9000 homes with 20 floaters in the water.
Oyster - the world's largest working hydro-electric wave energy device
Sottland (http://www.gizmag.com/oyster-hydro-electric-wave-energy-device/13461/)

http://images.gizmag.com/hero/oyster-wave-power--1.jpg


Ithink a lot of the complaints sound like the people who never thought we'd be able to fly or like those who said we'd always use the horse and the car will never work. Horses weren't replaced over night. And Planes didn't make trucks or trains completely obsolete. TV didn't replace radio but radio did lose it's prominence. I don't think Oil will disappear.

But Solar, wind and other types of energy make a whole lot more sense long term.

People also talk as if Battery Tech has reached some kind of Brick wall just because it hasn't progressed as fast as the Blazing fast Computer chip tech. Well it slow compared to that but it's moving faster than many think. Think of the 1st moble phone and the phones today.
even the laptop computer or I-pods.

ANd Here's some recent developments
New battery technology may allow for complete recharging within minutes (http://www.gizmag.com/3d-thin-film-batteries-recharge-in-minutes/18187/)
Of all the criticisms of electric vehicles, probably the most commonly-heard is that their batteries take too long to recharge – after all, limited range wouldn't be such a big deal if the cars could be juiced up while out and about, in just a few minutes. Well, while no one is promising anything, new batteries developed at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign do indeed look like they might be a step very much in the right direction. They are said to offer all the advantages of capacitors and batteries, in one unit.

"This system that we have gives you capacitor-like power with battery-like energy," said U Illinois' Paul Braun, a professor of materials science and engineering. "Most capacitors store very little energy. They can release it very fast, but they can't hold much. Most batteries store a reasonably large amount of energy, but they can't provide or receive energy rapidly. This does both."

The speed at which conventional batteries are able to charge or discharge can be dramatically increased by changing the form of their active material into a thin film, but such films have typically lacked the volume to be able to store a significant amount of energy. In the case of Braun's batteries, however, that thin film has been formed into a three-dimensional structure, thus increasing its storage capacity.

Batteries equipped with the 3D film have been demonstrated to work normally in electrical devices, while being able to charge and discharge 10 to 100 times faster than their conventional counterparts....

And there's this on the lithium front too

March 16, 2009 Researchers have developed a new advanced Lithium Ion battery that will allow mobile phone and laptop computers to be fully charged in seconds. Electric car batteries may be charged in as little as five minutes, removing one of the main barriers to wider uptake of EVs. Solar and wind power generation could also benefit as better batteries could be used to store surplus energy.

MIT researchers Byoungwoo Kang & Gerbrand Ceder have discovered a way to make a lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) battery charge and discharge about as fast as a supercapacitor. In a typical lithium ion cell when a current is applied to charge the cell, lithium ions move away from the cathode compound and are trapped at the anode storage medium. When the battery discharges producing current, those ions travel back to the cathode medium and in so doing produce current flow.

Speed of charging in typical lithium-ion cells is slowed by virtue of the fact that it takes time for the lithium ion to move off the cathode material. Various techniques have been tried to increase that speed including the nanoparticle doping strategy that A123 Systems uses.

The scientists noted that lithium iron phosphate forms a lattice that creates small tunnels through which the lithium ions flow, but that although the cathode seemed ideal it still took some time for those ions to travel. The novel solution they devised was to create a lithium phosphate glassy surface to coat these tunnels. This glassy surface acts as a speedway that rapidly transports the lithium ions on and off the cathode.

Extremely high rates can be achieved, at a 200C rate (corresponding to an 18 second total discharge) more than 100mAh g can be achieved, and a capacity of 60mAh g is obtained at a 400C rate (9 sec to full discharge). Such discharge rates are two orders of magnitude larger than those used in today’s lithium ion batteries. Typical power rates for lithium ion battery materials are in the range of 0.5 to 2 kW/kg. The specific power observed for the modified LiFePO4 (170kWkg at a 400C rate and 90kWkg at a 200C rate) is two orders of magnitude higher. At this point the researchers have only tested the cells to 50 cycles but have noted no degradation. They have made a small prototype cell which can be fully charged in 10 to 20 seconds, compared with six minutes for cells made in the standard way.....
AS far as solar not working in shade or at night, Techs have developed solar cells that work off of the infrared spectrum which come through the clouds and is available even in shade and comes from the earth at night.
Here's 1 article on one version there are some yotubes I can't put my hands on right now of others.
New solar-thermal device harnesses heat and light (http://www.gizmag.com/solar-thermal-cell/18346/)

There's a lot i want to say and link here but rather than prove it with links I'm just going to spew what i've read as available or in the works.

Solar paint. with Nano solar particles. paint the house power the house.

Higher yield energy from solar cells. 40-50% range rather than 20s

Hydrogen Power, Cracking water and or ammonia for energy. Very small air conditioner sizes units potentially powering whole houses on a few gallons.

Oil from home trash if we want oil.

That's just what I've heard of over the past few years that in the works today.

If the Gov't and established energy will open a crack free market energy could be common place in 20 years. with domestic and local capacity best suited for specific regions.

We are living in the future, no need to hold onto horse and buggy energy if we don't have to.

[DragonStryk72]

I think it was one, at least so far.

Unless it becomes a commonplace problem, I think it may just be a defect, a serious defect, but a defect nonetheless, or it could have been user idiocy. I don't think we're ever going to get around that second one, though

[Little-Acorn]

I'm wondering if the intrepid couple finally decided to push that Chevy Volt out into a field or something?

"Don't be silly, Mabel! That car won't catch on fire a third time."

After that first garage fire, I recall that that Chevy Volt was pretty well toasted. I'm sure an insurance company would declare it totaled. As far as I know, they are still trying to determined if the car itself started the first fire, or if it was something else in the garage, and the fire simply consumed the car.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Chevy-Volt-Garage-Fire-582x309.jpg

Was that same burned-out shell of a car still in the garage on Monday night when the fire "restarted"? Any sort of fire can destroy much electrical insulation, battery cases etc. And if the burned-out car's batteries still had any power in them (it's possible), it could very easily start a second fire even if it didn't start the first one.

Or did the family get fast action from their insurance company, and they already had a brand-new replacement for their old, toasted Chevy Volt in the garage, when the second fire started? (Who would put a brand-new car in a burned out garage?)

Anybody know what kind of batteries the Chevy Volt has? Older technology batteries include lead-acid batteries, Nickel-cadmium batteries, and the somewhat newer Nicel-Metal-Hydride (NiMH) batteries (Toyota Prius has NiMH). They have all proven pretty stable, and mostly immune to fires even when overcharged or over-discharged (but not when short-circuited).

But some newer batteries include Lithium-Polymer and Lithium-Iron-Phosphate. Your cell phone probably has one of these, and maybe your laptop computer. They are much smaller and lighter than an older battery of the same power capacity (or, a battery the same size and weight as an older one, can pack twice the power or more). And they aren't quite as forgiving as the older chemistries.

If overcharged or over-discharged, Lithium-Polymer batteries in particular (the most power-packed for their size and weight, an important factor in producing longer-range electric cars), can leak toxic and inflammable chemicals when abused even a little, and can catch fire with comparative ease when this happens. Charging circuits, and power-control circuits when the car is running, must be VERY carefully designed to avoid even a little electrical abuse of their batteries.

Does a Chevy Volt have any kind of Lithium batteries? Or does it use the older but safer NiMH type, or some other type?

And, was the same car that was in the garage for the first fire, still in the garage when the second fire started? Or had it been replaced with a new one when the second fire started?

[revelarts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWf9nYbm3ac&feature=player_detailpage

6 billion tons a year Agricultural Waste converted to 400 billion barrels of Oil.

the process is being used today.

[logroller]

Just because a chevy volt caught on fire doesn't mean electric vehicles are to blame. How many gas powered cars have started fires? I'm guessing a lot! It really comes down to what we're willing to pay for. Here's a video illustrating the point.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ev_Uph_TLLo?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ev_Uph_TLLo?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

edit: oops I'd meant to post part 2

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iPqdRqacpFk?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iPqdRqacpFk?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[revelarts]

Freidman in the second makes a somewhat valid point.
I agree that people should be free to choose the level of risk. But as he pointed out the buyers we're not given the option of prior knowledge. I do think truth in labeling law should apply to manufacturers to a degree as well as drug companies and food producers.

In the Pinto's case who would buy one if they knew that if that got rear ended it would blow up?

His point, while fine in the abstract, does not apply in the specific case. In terms of dollars or morals. Ford had no moral ground to stand on.

Hopefully the Volt's case is not one of a prior known defect, or a standard defect at all. to early to tell.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8qV00petZ0Y?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8qV00petZ0Y?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

[logroller]

Freidman in the second makes a somewhat valid point.
I agree that people should be free to choose the level of risk. But as he pointed out the buyers we're not given the option of prior knowledge. I do think truth in labeling law should apply to manufacturers to a degree as well as drug companies and food producers.

In the Pinto's case who would buy one if they knew that if that got rear ended it would blow up?

His point, while fine in the abstract, does not apply in the specific case. In terms of dollars or morals. Ford had no moral ground to stand on.

Hopefully the Volt's case is not one of a prior known defect, or a standard defect at all. to early to tell.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8qV00petZ0Y?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8qV00petZ0Y?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

For the sake of argument, let's say they do know what the risk of fire during recharge is. What would be the cost to ensure such fire's didn't happen? I'm guessing it would raise the price of the vehicle above what consumer's would be willing to pay. What then, make a moral decision which cripples your business? Again, I understand the inherent lack of moral virtue in greed, but what is the alternative? As Friedman quipped to Donahue-- "Where in the world do you find these angels who are going to organize society for us? I don't even trust you to do that."

[fj1200]

"Where in the world do you find these angels..."

Cal of course. They're smart.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

sorry, thought I could say that without laughing

[revelarts]

For the sake of argument, let's say they do know what the risk (assuming the worse) of fire during recharge is. What would be the cost to ensure such fire's didn't happen? I'm guessing (assuming the worse)it would raise the price of the vehicle above what consumer's would be willing to pay. What then, make a moral decision which cripples your business? Again, I understand the inherent lack of moral virtue in greed, but what is the alternative? As Friedman quipped to Donahue-- "Where in the world do you find these angels who are going to organize society for us? I don't even trust you to do that."

Generally speaking, if they know there's a problem, they need to work it out to failure rate until they'd all be comfortable with having it in there own homes.

No need to be angel for that level of safety.

If it puts it above the cost the consumer will bear then that's part of the market isn't it. Not all products make it.

Do you have to be angel to hope your products don't kill people?

[logroller]

Generally speaking, if they know there's a problem, they need to work it out to failure rate until they'd all be comfortable with having it in there own homes.

No need to be angel for that level of safety.

If it puts it above the cost the consumer will bear then that's part of the market isn't it. Not all products make it.

Do you have to be angel to hope your products don't kill people?

Ah yes, but isn't that an individual judgment, not that of the collective. One person might want it to be a failure rate of 1 in a million, another 1 in ten thousand. And understand this is a statistic, just given a failure rate of 1 in a million, doesn't mean that there couldn't be two failures in the first thousand. You could reduce the risk of your house burning to the ground by installing a fire suppression system in the garage, but at great cost. Rather those costs exceed those of making the product safer is a question of relative value used to analyze cost/benefit. And for the most part, we aren't willing to pay that much. But whose fault is this? We're the one's not willing to pay, the market provides us what we demand. Take firearms for example, there is technology available that would render the weapon unfireable except by certain individuals, but it would cost say 5X more (just throwing that # out there). Safes and trigger locks are far cheaper, so they find broader acceptance in the market. Are we to blame the manufacturers of trigger locks whose cheaper devices impede use of the weapon in the event of an emergency, knowing their product is slower than some fingerprint detection device? or the firearms manufacturers themselves? Perhaps blame govt laws requiring such devices? There's no clear consensus on such matters; it varies by individual-- that's free-choice. It takes an angel to remove free-choice without tacitly benefitting from it.

[Kathianne]

This may be a bit off topic, but it reminds me of recycling. Totally green?

So many containers are marked recyclable, but even with rinsing, not ok. To get them that clean, need to run the dishwasher or lots of hot water and detergent. Waste? Which way?

[logroller]

This may be a bit off topic, but it reminds me of recycling. Totally green?

So many containers are marked recyclable, but even with rinsing, not ok. To get them that clean, need to run the dishwasher or lots of hot water and detergent. Waste? Which way?

Ida know, they must be way pickier than my recycler. I double rinse, sometimes still has little bits of food, but I never had a complaint. But you're right, that is ridiculous.

[fj1200]

We put ours out by the curb once a week, they throw it all in the back of the dump truck, and away it goes.